Front windows tint advice
Discussion
Your insurance will not be invalidated for tinted front windows from a TP perspective. It won't head down an RTA route, unless there are other aggravating factors amd other non declared material facts such as a major crash.
Damage to your own vehicle may be excluded, but that again will depend on all sorts of factors, such as the insurer, police involvement in the incident, is this the only undeclared fact, who fitted the tints, how dark are they and so on.
The comment around tinted rear windscreen leading to an insurer refusing cover is probably down to a call centre person not understanding the question being asked. There would be no issue with figment of an OE rear windscreen even if it is a notional upgrade. No inspection would be sufficiently detailed to find it and equally to repudiate a claim requires the non disclosed fact to be relevant to the claim being made.
Damage to your own vehicle may be excluded, but that again will depend on all sorts of factors, such as the insurer, police involvement in the incident, is this the only undeclared fact, who fitted the tints, how dark are they and so on.
The comment around tinted rear windscreen leading to an insurer refusing cover is probably down to a call centre person not understanding the question being asked. There would be no issue with figment of an OE rear windscreen even if it is a notional upgrade. No inspection would be sufficiently detailed to find it and equally to repudiate a claim requires the non disclosed fact to be relevant to the claim being made.
LoonR1 said:
The comment around tinted rear windscreen leading to an insurer refusing cover is probably down to a call centre person not understanding the question being asked. There would be no issue with figment of an OE rear windscreen even if it is a notional upgrade. No inspection would be sufficiently detailed to find it and equally to repudiate a claim requires the non disclosed fact to be relevant to the claim being made.
It probably was a call centre person but I did clarify to say that it would be fitted by Skoda and the car could have been spec'd with it at manufacture so it was no real difference from other similar models out there and they clearly said "No, it is aftermarket modification" and they would not insure it. I really cannot see how they did not understand the question, I was surprised by their refusal so did speak to them for some time but they would not budge. As I mentioned, I didn't want it enough to argue with them or change insurers mid term.
hman said:
sorry I meant as opposed to OE fitment of tinted glass, do you have to declare this as a modification?
Sorry to be dumb but what does OE mean?For my Insurer at the time:
Fitted at manufacturing stage: all ok
Fitted when car was 3 years old, even by manufacturer, to the same standards etc : declare as a mod and refuse to insure (I thought they were being a bit Dumbo at the time but their perogative)
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people on here at times. When it comes tomisnuramce there is a polarisation of views. Those who obsess about complying with everything to the nth degree all the time, no matter how irrelevant. Then there's their opposites, those who try to blag everything all the time.
The concept of disclosure is primarily one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a reasonable person to know if a part is a Modification or not?
If you fit something OE to your car that could easily be a standard or option at manufacture to your car then it really doesn't practically speaking need disclosing. If you want to be pedantic then fine go ahead and declare it, but I won't declare dust caps, windscreen wipers, even improved brake pads as log as they are OE equipment. Calipers inwould declare as I know I had them fitted for a reason.
If you fit an aftermarket part to your car then it absolutely does need declaring, such as the tinted plastic fit.
If you buy a car with stuff added to it then it's a case of what could you reasonably know to be a modification. A tinted bit of plastic stuck on is visible to most reasonable people, therefore declare it.
It comes down to common sense and yet people don't want to use that, instead demanding a specific list and then in the same breath bemoaning the Nanny State!
The concept of disclosure is primarily one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a reasonable person to know if a part is a Modification or not?
If you fit something OE to your car that could easily be a standard or option at manufacture to your car then it really doesn't practically speaking need disclosing. If you want to be pedantic then fine go ahead and declare it, but I won't declare dust caps, windscreen wipers, even improved brake pads as log as they are OE equipment. Calipers inwould declare as I know I had them fitted for a reason.
If you fit an aftermarket part to your car then it absolutely does need declaring, such as the tinted plastic fit.
If you buy a car with stuff added to it then it's a case of what could you reasonably know to be a modification. A tinted bit of plastic stuck on is visible to most reasonable people, therefore declare it.
It comes down to common sense and yet people don't want to use that, instead demanding a specific list and then in the same breath bemoaning the Nanny State!
LoonR1 said:
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people on here at times. When it comes tomisnuramce there is a polarisation of views. Those who obsess about complying with everything to the nth degree all the time, no matter how irrelevant. Then there's their opposites, those who try to blag everything all the time.
The concept of disclosure is primarily one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a reasonable person to know if a part is a Modification or not?
If you fit something OE to your car that could easily be a standard or option at manufacture to your car then it really doesn't practically speaking need disclosing. If you want to be pedantic then fine go ahead and declare it, but I won't declare dust caps, windscreen wipers, even improved brake pads as log as they are OE equipment. Calipers inwould declare as I know I had them fitted for a reason.
If you fit an aftermarket part to your car then it absolutely does need declaring, such as the tinted plastic fit.
If you buy a car with stuff added to it then it's a case of what could you reasonably know to be a modification. A tinted bit of plastic stuck on is visible to most reasonable people, therefore declare it.
It comes down to common sense and yet people don't want to use that, instead demanding a specific list and then in the same breath bemoaning the Nanny State!
And yet when someone asks for advice you usually recommend they contact the Insurer as each Insurer may have different terms and conditions. I did exactly that for this specific subject and was told no by the Insurer at the time. The concept of disclosure is primarily one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a reasonable person to know if a part is a Modification or not?
If you fit something OE to your car that could easily be a standard or option at manufacture to your car then it really doesn't practically speaking need disclosing. If you want to be pedantic then fine go ahead and declare it, but I won't declare dust caps, windscreen wipers, even improved brake pads as log as they are OE equipment. Calipers inwould declare as I know I had them fitted for a reason.
If you fit an aftermarket part to your car then it absolutely does need declaring, such as the tinted plastic fit.
If you buy a car with stuff added to it then it's a case of what could you reasonably know to be a modification. A tinted bit of plastic stuck on is visible to most reasonable people, therefore declare it.
It comes down to common sense and yet people don't want to use that, instead demanding a specific list and then in the same breath bemoaning the Nanny State!
I struggle to understand why you are being so combative about this?
swerni said:
hman said:
I'd like to know how an insurer works out that putting plastic tints on the glass behind the B pillar affects the risk of a claim by the insured.
Would they do the same for mesh window blinds?
They don'tWould they do the same for mesh window blinds?
But there is a clue in the title of the thread "Front windows tint advice"
hman said:
I'd like to know how an insurer works out that putting plastic tints on the glass behind the B pillar affects the risk of a claim by the insured.
Would they do the same for mesh window blinds?
Perhaps it's because it reduces the viability and makes it harder to see out of.Would they do the same for mesh window blinds?
I know from experience that reversing at night, on an unlit road isn't great with a 5% limo tint on the rear.
Kateg28 said:
And yet when someone asks for advice you usually recommend they contact the Insurer as each Insurer may have different terms and conditions. I did exactly that for this specific subject and was told no by the Insurer at the time.
I struggle to understand why you are being so combative about this?
I'm not being combative, you're taking it personally. I keep saying that people should stop shouting my posts in their head and they'd make a lot more sense. I struggle to understand why you are being so combative about this?
I used your example to highlight this, as its on the thread. I could've used other suggestions, but figured that your situation would bring it to life.
I suggest people speak to their insurer about most things, however they tend to be when they say things like, "what will next year's premium be?", or "Have I got DOC?". Whe. It comes to things like this then common sense is your friend. I hate to say it, but it is. I've described simple scenarios above and they should make sense to most. If people don't want to follow my suggestions, then that's fine, but you'll end up tying yourself in unnecessary knots.
LoonR1 said:
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people on here at times.
Really? - Sometimes I really struggle to understand the posts that people put on here at times!For example:
LoonR1 said:
When it comes tomisnuramce there is a polarisation of views.
What the Hell is: "tomisnuramce"? 
4rephill said:
LoonR1 said:
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people on here at times.
Really? - Sometimes I really struggle to understand the posts that people put on here at times!For example:
LoonR1 said:
When it comes tomisnuramce there is a polarisation of views.
What the Hell is: "tomisnuramce"? "tominsurance" is a clear typo, where I've hit the "m" key instead of the space key and auto correct has then gone berserk with insurance. If you couldn't work that out, then you've got problems. If you could, then your post is pathetic.
Robert Burns said:
Hi all,
In need of some advice.
I bought a car recently for the OH and she picked the car up. It has front window tints which I know are illegal.
The question I want to ask would be. The government website says "It’s illegal to fit or sell glass (or a vehicle already fitted with glass) that breaks the rules on tinted windows."
Do I have enough evidence for the dealership to pay for the removal of the tints from the glass??
Cheers
Rabbie
Back on topic, stop being a jebend and just peel it off, takes minutes to do stop making an issue out of nothing, and on top of that YOU bought the car for your wife and YOU knew it had illegal tints, so what should have happened here is In need of some advice.
I bought a car recently for the OH and she picked the car up. It has front window tints which I know are illegal.
The question I want to ask would be. The government website says "It’s illegal to fit or sell glass (or a vehicle already fitted with glass) that breaks the rules on tinted windows."
Do I have enough evidence for the dealership to pay for the removal of the tints from the glass??
Cheers
Rabbie
"When you PDI the car, can you remove the tints please because I know they're illegal?" What has more than likely happened is your wife has been cautioned for them and you're looking to pass the buck onto the garage.
LudaMusser said:
With reference to the people telling the OP to 'simply peel off the tint'. It's not always that simple, often the tint will leave glue across the entire piece of glass.
I've worked at a number of main dealers and I've seen at least one car with illegal tints on the front glass sold s/h with the tints left on. The majority of Sales staff don't realise that there are laws on tints forward of the B post.
IMO the car should be rectified FOC by the dealership. They've sold a car that is illegal for the road. And yes, if there was an accident i.e car pulls out of a junction and hits motorbike. If the car had front tints it could be claimed that the driver's visibility has been impaired.
It is always that simple, peel it off, apply this http://www.halfords.com/motoring/car-cleaning/sham... to any remaining glue, and it will do what it says on the bottle and remove the glue.I've worked at a number of main dealers and I've seen at least one car with illegal tints on the front glass sold s/h with the tints left on. The majority of Sales staff don't realise that there are laws on tints forward of the B post.
IMO the car should be rectified FOC by the dealership. They've sold a car that is illegal for the road. And yes, if there was an accident i.e car pulls out of a junction and hits motorbike. If the car had front tints it could be claimed that the driver's visibility has been impaired.
Fact is OP knew they were illegal and should have asked the garage to remove on PDI, he was happy with them to start with otherwise he would have said something.
LoonR1 said:
4rephill said:
LoonR1 said:
I really struggle to understand the mindset of people on here at times.
Really? - Sometimes I really struggle to understand the posts that people put on here at times!For example:
LoonR1 said:
When it comes tomisnuramce there is a polarisation of views.
What the Hell is: "tomisnuramce"? "tominsurance" is a clear typo, where I've hit the "m" key instead of the space key and auto correct has then gone berserk with insurance. If you couldn't work that out, then you've got problems. If you could, then your post is pathetic.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff